General

Who’s Telling “Yarns” Now? Grim Fairy Tales about America

/1 Comment/in /by

One of the greatest things President Trump has done for the country is to begin the long project of stripping our national parks and museums of anti-American bile.

Earlier this year, I wrote about The New York Times’s special Fourth of July interview with Jia Lynn Yang, former national editor — and apparently quite an expert on U.S. history. Her main point was that Americans who are proud of their country are simpletons who believe in fairy tales. She then proceeded to emit a firehose of made-up stories of her own. (Someone needs to do a deep dive into those SAT statistics produced in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.)

She claims we should discount inspiring stories about our founding because back then, history was nothing but “great stories that people like to tell over and over” that gave Americans “a sense of meaning.”

Yang is confusing us with Africans. As we have been repeatedly told, “storytelling” is a primary source of African history. Indeed, the Western obsession with written records and documentation is a well-known example of “white supremacy.”

But according to Yang, in the early days of our country, historians were just “rich guys … with a lot of time” on their hands, making up “great yarns.”

Yes, like that slouch Justice John Marshall, who wrote a five-volume biography of George Washington, based on thousands of pages of public documents, privates diaries and the president’s original letters. Or the story of Paul Revere’s ride and the battles of Lexington and Concord based on 23 depositions signed by 94 eyewitnesses, including local minutemen, bystanders, alarm riders, and even three captured British soldiers, as well as Revere’s eight-page account of his evening.

Today, we have much more serious historians, like C. Riley Snorton and Darius Bost, who wrote the book “A Black Queer History of the United States.” (A hint for those of you looking to do some early Christmas shopping!)

To be fair, Yang doesn’t cite Snorton and Bost as examples of the “professional historians” she respects. The ones she cites are worse. They are Charles Beard and Annette Gordon-Reed.

In 1913, Beard wrote “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution,” a Marxist analysis of the founding, portraying it as a capitalist-versus-proletarian struggle between the Federalists, who were allegedly rich property owners, and the Anti-Federalists, who were supposedly debtors and farmers.

It made America’s founders look like greedy, unprincipled louses, so Beard’s book is must-reading at the Times. According to Yang, it’s solid history because conservatives’ only comeback was to say: “whoa, whoa, whoa. You can’t talk like that about the Founders. You can’t talk like that about George Washington, the guy with the cherry tree.”

(Yang’s obsession with the harmless children’s story about Washington and the cherry tree is pathological. She cites it over and over again to prove that patriotic Americans are hopelessly naive.)

Um, actually, that wasn’t the comeback at all. In the 1950s, historian Forrest McDonald examined tax documents and Treasury records and guess what? There was no difference in the percentage of property owners on each side. Beard’s entire thesis was based on a lie (or, to be charitable, shoddy research).

The other historian Yang cites favorably is Annette Gordon-Reed, whose 1997 book, “Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy,” claimed that Jefferson fathered all six of Hemings’ children.

Considering Yang’s view of people who spin “yarns” and call it history, Gordon-Reed is an odd choice. The entire premise of “An American Controversy” is that racist white historians refused to credit the black tradition of “oral history” — AKA, “great yarns” that give people “a sense of meaning.” (In Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s case, her family’s oral history about being Cherokee not only gave her a sense of meaning, but a tenure-track position at Harvard.)

Gordon-Reed’s book was based on the Hemings family’s “oral history” that two of Sally’s children, Thomas and Madison, were fathered by the former president — though whether Thomas even existed remained an open question. From there, she leapt to the conclusion that all of Hemings’ children were fathered by Jefferson.

In Yang’s telling: “And then a year later, there’s even DNA testing to prove that she’s completely right.” This is correct if by “completely right” she means, “completely wrong.”

In fact, the DNA proved that Sally’s son “Thomas” was definitely not fathered by any Jefferson male. The DNA could prove nothing about Madison because the family refused to allow DNA testing on a deceased male relative.

The genetic evidence established only that one of Hemings’ children, the last-born Eston, was the son of some Jefferson male, but could not possibly determine whether it was the president or any of the other 25 adult male Jeffersons living in Virginia at the time, eight of them at or near Monticello.

Among the many, many reasons historians never credited the Jefferson-Hemings baby mama drama are these [WARNING: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE COMING]:

There are no letters, diaries or records supporting the idea that Jefferson was intimate with Hemings and quite a bit of written documentation to refute it.

Private correspondence from those living at Monticello, for example, pointed to others as likely culprits, specifically Jefferson’s much younger brother, Randolph. One slave, Isaac Granger Jefferson, described Randolph in his dictated memoirs thus: “Old Master’s brother, Mass Randall, was a mighty simple man: used to come out among black people, play the fiddle and dance half the night.”

By contrast, there is not a single account of Thomas Jefferson visiting the slave quarters.

When Eston was conceived, Randolph was an unmarried widower. Jefferson was president, spending the majority of his time in Washington, D.C. After Randolph remarried, Hemings had no more children.

So why is the entire country humoring the Hemings family — and liberals — by pretending to be unaware of what the DNA actually shows? What happened to our reverence for “The Science”? Where’s Anthony Fauci?

I presume the Times would say that at least the Jefferson yarn is not as bad as that vicious lie about the cherry tree. A simpler explanation is that the left refuses to believe anything good about America, while billboarding preposterous fictions that make the country look bad.

Trump can’t move fast enough to excise this nonsense from our public spaces. Burn down our cities, but leave our history alone.

White Australia Party Hearing: First-Hand Overview, Opinion and Assessment

/3 Comments/in /by

Background: Australia attempts to ban the White Australia Party

Lone Patriot  @LonePatriot14

White Australia Party Hearing: First-Hand Overview, Opinion and Assessment

The White Australia Party and its legal representatives took to the High Court over the last two days, to pitch their oral arguments to the court, that are built off all the already filed material.

The plaintiffs (White Australia Party) opened the hearing, pitching their three arguments on the first day, and fielding questions from the bench.

The Commonwealth began their defence in the last hour of day one, and into day two.

The state interveners made their arguments in the latter half of the second day, and finally the plaintiffs had a final opportunity to rebut and reply before the case was concluded, and judgement reserved.

Day One

The proceedings were opened to a packed gallery of journalists, members of the public supporting the case’s merits, and members of the legal sphere and students interested in the case.

Peter King, acting for the White Australia Party, began by addressing his arguments in chronological order, first beginning with argument one, the lack of head of power, dismantling how the Constitution shouldn’t be voided or subordinated by international treaties, and how this case mirrors the Communist Party Case identically.

He effectively argued how the legislation reaches well beyond the treaty’s scope and doesn’t provide for any consideration of political rights in its current form, and that this implementation “trashes the treaty obligations, political, and civil rights obligations”.

King also outlined how the bill “retroactively reaches back to the cosmic dawn”, with no time limit on what previous behaviours (that were legal at the time) could now be considered as hate crimes for listing.

Shahed Sharify, junior barrister, presented the second argument, the implied freedom of political communication.

He provided good working analogies of how expansive the definition of a “hate crime” is in this bill, and how it may capture something as simple as expressing anti-American sentiment, due to the wording being so loose.

He used an analogy that simply saying, “someone wants to destroy an American flag”, is enough to constitute proscription if the Minister is motivated enough to ban an organisation.

Peter King resumed to cover argument three, that the separation of powers was being breached by conferring the power to proscribe an organisation to the Minister, with no court involvement other than finding of guilt if one continues to be a member.

For the first couple of hours, some of the bench seemed quite hostile towards the White Australia Party, especially Justices Beech-Jones, Gleeson and Edelman. But they softened throughout the day and seemed to be moving in the direction of the WAP as time went on into lunchtime.

The justices all seemed very receptive to the Chapter III Separation of Powers argument, asking numerous questions that only strengthened the WAP’s arguments.

Edelman was one of the most hostile and for the longest of all the justices, asking a total of 4 times over the first day whether it was possible that the party could just continue “without the race hate”, and if they “dropped the race hate, and focussed on cost of living, would that be permitted?”.

To this, Peter King and Sharify both explained that the breadth and width of the law is so wide, and the past behaviour of new members is transferrable to new organisations.

Later in the afternoon, Brendan Lim SC for the Commonwealth also begrudgingly admitted the same, and that members of a new entity could still be charged and jailed due to the open ended “phoenixing” language.

Edelman also at points tried to push a line of questioning that “the concept of the nation in 2026 is very different rather than in 1950”, and another line of questioning that presented a theory that banning the WAP allowed for “minorities” to participate more freely and without fear in “representative democracy”.

Edelman eventually gave up his angle of trying to look for upholding this bill, severability or “reading down”, and seemed to move to the idea that the bill was completely toxic, after all of his hypotheticals were refuted by both King and (begrudgingly) Brendan Lim for the Commonwealth.

When Brendan Lim SC opened his arguments for the last hour of the first day, the justices came out extremely strong against him from the get-go.

They spent the time grilling him on how the definition of hate crime is so loose, how the breadth and width of the law is so grand and could capture basically any political action.

At first, to observers it had seemed like the justices were being harsh on the WAP, but that was nothing compared to the serving that Lim got when he began.

They basically one-shotted him immediately with hostility and questions that highlighted the audacity of this legislation as soon as he stood up.

The justices immediately questioned Lim on why less restrictive means and laws couldn’t be used, why the State Crimes Acts or Commonwealth Criminal Code couldn’t just deal with individuals if they personally commit a crime.

To this, Lim admitted that the legislation was “targeted” to “degrade and disrupt the organisation”, which seemed to not sit well with the Justices at all, especially Chief Justice Gageler.

Day one concluded after an hour of Lim being grilled and the court then adjourned for the next day.

Spirits were high and supporters of the case and onlookers were optimistic after seeing how much the justices were hammering Lim.

Day Two

Day two opened with an echoing affirmation of “God save the King” by Thomas Sewell and associates in the courtroom, when the phrase was used by the clerk to open the court.

Lim resumed his defence of the legislation. His focus for the entire day was attempted “justification” of the legislation’s necessity, due to it upsetting the feelings of minorities and spreading “race hate”.

He attempted to defend the treaty’s legitimacy and argued that it wasn’t an over-implementation of the treaty’s requirements, to which the justices seemed not very receptive.

They also again criticised the looseness of the wording, shady and inconsistent definition of what a “hate crime” is, and at one point asked Lim what “training with a prohibited hate group” means in this bill’s context and how there is “no definition”.

To this, Lim replied that the group in this context does “physical fitness training”, which the justices seemed to think was not an offence and was ludicrous.

Lim spent the majority of his time giving overly emotive descriptions on how the burden on the implied freedom of political communication is justified because the group has an “ongoing risk of inspiring violence in others on the periphery”, and that “harm to the community is caused by the presence of the group… caused by the internet”.

Lim tried to say at one point, that there is no “net-burden” on political communication, because whilst the WAP is restricted from organising, minorities are therefore empowered to speak, so therefore it is a net-win for free speech.

Chief Justice Gageler pulled him up on it harshly and said there was no such thing under the law as calculating “net-burden” on political communication.

Almost all of Lim’s argument was emotional in nature, and was complete ASIO-language, and left-wing intellectual pseudo-science language.

The Justices at one point questioned whether even if the group is shut down, if three former members went and handed out pamphlets of a new entity, or even a non-entity, and they had objectives or similarities of the previous group’s objectives, could they be captured under this legislation for either phoenixing or continuance and be charged?

To which Lim quietly admitted yes, to the seeming dissatisfaction of the justices.

Lim was also questioned heavily on whether a new political party, if it included the “same leaders, or members” would be free to operate, to which he admitted that it would “capture” a new political party. This was also seemingly viewed negatively by the justices.

All through day two, it seemed like the arguments King had made on the day prior, had resonated with the justices, and that they had returned on the same wavelength that the bill was completely toxic and unsalvageable.

Every line of questioning they made to Lim, seemed to steelman Peter King’s arguments even further, with Lim having to constantly concede that the law was so expansive, so broad, so onerous, and poorly drafted.

The state interveners spent their allotted time mostly pushing back against the prospect of the Court finding a new expansive judgement on the nationhood power, an argument the Commonwealth uses in their argument one. That the Commonwealth can ban the WAP to secure the nation from a threat.

The Justices expressed agreement with this and implied through their questioning that the Commonwealth had taken a very expansive view of the nationhood power, that wasn’t in line with the Constitution.

The states agreed with the Commonwealth on the other grounds.

Peter King returned to rebut arguments that the Commonwealth had made, specifically strengthening the separation of powers analogy even further, and dismantling an argument made by the Commonwealth that the proscription was similar to the prohibiting of drugs such as cocaine, and the case was concluded.

 

Conclusion and Assessment

Personally, I think the justices were receptive to the arguments King made, and very disappointed with the arguments that Lim made in attempted defence of this legislation.

All the questioning the justices gave to Lim, seemed to only strengthen the arguments made by King on the day prior.

Chief Justice Gageler was seemingly receptive immediately, and Justices Beech-Jones, Gordon and Gleeson were seemingly won over on the first day as time progressed.

Edelman was the last to seem to move, after he explored all his options for if the group could just continue in another form and not be racist, and whether the same individuals would be captured under new formations.***

Justice Jagot was silent the entire first day, and didn’t attend the second day due to apparent illness or similar. Jagot will still cast judgement and will assess via transcript for day two.

Justice Steward, who is the most negative and in his previous judgements doesn’t even believe the implied right to political communication exists, didn’t sit for the hearing, with reason unknown.

Because of Steward’s absence, it makes the decision required only 3 out of 6 Justices, with Chief Justice Gageler acting as a tie breaker if required.

I believe the justices were most receptive on the Chapter III arguments (separation of powers), as the way it was put to them by both Lim and King was completely rotten constitutionally and seemed unworkable.

The second strongest argument is likely argument one, the Communist Party principle and the dismantlement of the treaties.

The justices made strong reference to previous case law precedent about the “lighthouse principle”, that just because a treaty says to ban lighthouses, doesn’t mean the Commonwealth can start calling anything it wants a lighthouse and therefore ban it.

I think the third strongest argument is the implied freedom of political communication argument, and they were receptive that there is a very strong burden, that is hard to justify.

They questioned Lim heavily on the fact the law was overbearing and that less restrictive means could’ve been used. However, I think the justices will still be hesitant to write a judgement bolstering or even touching the implied right to political communication.

The justices will come to a decision based on all the filed material and legal submissions, which are strongly in favour of the White Australia Party (as I’ve already outlined in earlier articles), as well as the oral argument and questions asked by the justices.

Personally, I am cautiously optimistic in the success of the case, and look forward to the judgement to come in an expected 6 to 12 weeks.

It was an incredible experience, to watch and be in the highest court of the land, fighting for the existence of a party to represent a future for White Australians.

https://x.com/LonePatriot14/status/2097880903922118950

Israel starved Gaza. Now doctors fear it has permanently damaged a generation.

/2 Comments/in /by
From Mondoweiss
In the pediatrics department at Nasser Hospital in Gaza, doctors are seeing a surge in stunted growth among children. This lasting mark of Israel’s engineered famine may affect cognition, hormones, and health for generations to come.
By     5

Tahrir Zidan, 41, repeatedly brings his five-year-old daughter, Tala, to the malnutrition clinic at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, hoping to receive nutritional supplements or treatment that might help his children grow.

According to Zidan, Tala is 94 centimeters tall. The average height for a child her age is 109-110 centimeters. He says that her height and weight have barely changed over the past two years, and that at times she has actually lost weight.

“She was diagnosed with malnutrition and short stature,” he explained.

Advertisment

Shop the From The River To The Sea, Palestine Will Be Free short sleeve t-shirt in the Mondoweiss store!

Zidan, who is now displaced in the Mawasi area of Khan Younis after being forced from his home in Khuza’a, east of Khan Younis, says he cannot afford to provide his three children with a balanced diet. Two of them, including Tala, suffer from malnutrition.

Since the beginning of the war, he says, he has been unable to buy fruit or provide his family with a complete protein-rich meal. Instead, they depend heavily on food distributed by charitable kitchens to displaced people.

“I have not been able to buy even one kilogram of meat, a chicken, or a kilogram of fruit. We are living through conditions harsher than words can describe. The result is that my children are now suffering from problems that are difficult to treat,” Zidan told Mondoweiss.

Zidan says that his family sometimes obtains only one meal, and it’s not enough for the whole family. “The meal I obtain from the charity kitchen usually finishes while most of us are still hungry,” he said.

Zidan’s children are not alone. For children growing up in Gaza after October 7, hunger is beginning to leave a mark that may extend far beyond the immediate effects of starvation.

At the malnutrition clinic at Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis, doctors are increasingly seeing children who are not simply underweight but failing to grow in height. Some were born to mothers who endured pregnancy during periods of severe food deprivation; others have themselves spent years without adequate access to protein, healthy fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, and other nutrients essential for growth.

Doctors at Nasser Hospital say they are beginning to see what they fear could become one of the most lasting consequences of Gaza’s hunger crisis: a generation whose physical growth and development have been permanently altered or stunted by prolonged malnutrition.

Advertisment

Grab a new tote bag from Mondoweiss with the powerful slogan, "From the River, To the Sea, Palestine will be free!"

A generation affected by stunted growth 

Dr. Ahmad al-Farra, head of the Nasser Hospital’s pediatric department, sees dozens of cases a day at the hospital. Beyond the immediate problem of kids who are going hungry, he paints a worrying picture of an entire future generation that could possibly face chronic health issues due to the Israeli-engineered famine and food shortages in Gaza. The primary issue he sees emerging in Gaza presently, is children with stunted growth.

“We are facing a phenomenon that has begun to appear recently: cases of short stature,” al-Farra said. “We are now beginning to see the catastrophic consequences of malnutrition.”

According to the World Health Organization (WHO),  “stunting is the result of long-term nutritional deprivation, and often results in delayed mental development, poor school performance, and reduced intellectual capacity.”

Al-Farra says the effects of the prolonged nutritional crisis have begun to become visible after the period of severe hunger that intensified in March 2025 and continued into September 2025.

Isra al-Najjar, head of the Clinical Nutrition Department at Nasser Medical Complex, says the facility has recently recorded an increase in cases of stunted growth. Stunting is assessed by measuring a child’s height and comparing it with their chronological age against international growth standards and standard deviations.

“A height-for-age measurement between two and three standard deviations below the expected level is classified as stunting, while a measurement reaching three standard deviations below the norm is considered severe stunting,” she said.

In Gaza, Najjar says, “many cases of stunting are nutritional in origin, resulting from deficiencies in essential nutrients during critical periods of growth.” The problem became particularly pronounced during the famine of 2025, when many children were unable to obtain adequate amounts of protein, healthy fats, and complex carbohydrates. These deficiencies, she says, have affected their weight, overall growth, and height.

“The number of cases has been increasing month by month,” Najjar said. “Between three and 10 cases of stunted growth are now identified during each daily visit to the nutrition clinic at Nasser Medical Complex,” a rate she describes as significantly higher than before the war.

On August 26, 66 cases of malnutrition were seen at the clinic, including one child with short stature, according to al-Farra. On August 15, 82 malnutrition cases were recorded, including two cases of short stature. On August 22, 73 malnutrition cases were seen, including one case of short stature. On August 24, 79 cases were recorded, including four children with short stature.

The figures, al-Farra says, illustrate a recurring pattern: dozens of children arrive daily at the clinic with malnutrition, and an increasing number are also showing impaired linear growth.

In Tal al-Hawa, West of Gaza City, Jana Hajjaj, 10, is one of six siblings and has been diagnosed with malnutrition. Her father, Osama Hajjaj, 44, noticed that she was not growing as expected for her age. When he took her to a malnutrition clinic at al-Shifa hospital, doctors found that her skeletal development corresponded to that of a seven-year-old, indicating significant growth delays.

Jana was prescribed growth hormones for one month, her father says, but she needs to continue the treatment for six consecutive months. Gaza’sMinistry of Health, despite its limited resources, was able to provide the first month’s doses but could not secure the remaining supply. Hajjaj says he has also been unable to afford or obtain the medication himself.

“I have six children,” Hajjaj said. During the famine, we went hungry for several days at a time. Sometimes, we had only one meal every day or two. At times, I would go without food so that my children could eat.” Despite the deprivation, Hajjaj developed diabetes during the period of famine. Jana, meanwhile, became malnourished, and her growth was stunted.

“I don’t know whether this is something to be grateful for or something to fear,” Hajjaj said. “Out of my six children, only one developed malnutrition severe enough to affect her growth.

Thankfully, the others did not experience the same growth problems, although some of them also suffered from malnutrition. The effects may show up later, and we do not know what the future holds for us in Gaza.”

Effects from the womb into childhood

Dr. al-Farra says that in Gaza, the crisis starts from conception. He describes a scenario that he sees often: a pregnant woman who lived through famine in Gaza while repeatedly being displaced, exposed to fear, attacks, spoiled water, and inadequate medical care, with little or no access to prenatal follow-up or nutritional supplements such as folic acid.

Such conditions, he says, can lead to several possible outcomes, including congenital abnormalities, pregnancy loss, or fetal death. But another outcome worries him: a child born with low birth weight, premature birth, or impaired growth.

“If the child is born with low weight or is premature, and that child is a girl, the effects can extend into puberty,” he said. “There can be hormonal problems, delayed puberty, and ultimately short stature” Al-Farra said.

Al-Farra describes this as an “intergenerational cycle,” arguing that nutritional deprivation during pregnancy can influence the biological development of the fetus and potentially affect the next generation.

Scientific research supports part of this broader concern. A 2024 medical review found consistent evidence linking maternal undernutrition with fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, low birth weight and being small for gestational age. A large systematic review involving more than one million women similarly found that maternal underweight was associated with increased risks of preterm birth and low birth weight.

Researchers studying the developmental origins of health and disease have also found evidence that maternal undernutrition can influence fetal development through changes involving the placenta, gene expression and metabolic programming.

That does not mean that every child exposed to maternal malnutrition will develop stunting or chronic disease. But it does mean that deprivation during pregnancy can alter the conditions under which fetal growth takes place.

Lifelong consequence 

Al-Farra says that when a child experiences prolonged malnutrition, particularly for more than four weeks, the consequences extend beyond stunted growth, and can potentially affect children into adulthood.

The body’s hormonal systems can be affected, he says, including sex hormones and thyroid hormones. Growth can slow or stop, while developmental and cognitive problems may emerge.

“If the situation is corrected and the child receives adequate nutrition and care, height can recover, and hormonal function can recover,” he says. “But neurological and cognitive effects may not necessarily be fully reversible.”

Research on childhood malnutrition supports the broader concern about developmental consequences. A systematic review of 30 studies found strong evidence linking childhood malnutrition with impaired neurodevelopment and academic achievement, and moderate evidence of associations with impaired cognition and behavioral problems.

The WHO likewise notes that the effects of stunting are not limited to physical size. It can affect language, learning, psychosocial development, and later work capacity.

Al-Farra also points to what researchers call the “thrifty phenotype”: a theory describing how exposure to nutritional deprivation during fetal development can produce metabolic adaptations that help the body survive in a food-scarce environment but may become harmful if food becomes more abundant later.

Research has linked fetal undernutrition and this form of developmental programming to an increased risk of obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome later in life.

Al-Farra argues that this may help explain some of the nutritional changes he is seeing among children in Gaza.

He points to children who receive foods high in sugar and calories but lacking adequate protein and other nutrients. During the war, he says, products such as Nutella, instant noodles, chips, and Coca-Cola entered Gaza at various stages, creating a diet that provided calories without the nutrients children require for healthy development.

The result, he says, is a combination of excess body fat and protein deficiency that could increase the risk of chronic disease later in life.

“What we fear is that we are facing the targeting of an entire generation,” al-Farra said. “A generation that will suffer in the future from problems with cognition, understanding, and interaction, as well as chronic neurological problems and stunted growth.”

Mark Wauck: Breaking: Heavy US Casualties Reported As Iran Retaliates

/4 Comments/in /by

Breaking: Heavy US Casualties Reported As Iran Retaliates

The White House brain trust somehow convinced itself that if the US started sinking civilian Iranian tankers Iran would cry ‘Uncle’ due to the economic loss. It looks like they weren’t ready for what would happen next—as if they thought that Iran, after all these years, didn’t have a plan for every imaginable contingency. The US sank five civilian ships, so Iran launched massive missile strikes at US bases in Jordan. How could these geniuses not understand that Iran is looking to escalate and that US service personnel were in harm’s way with little protection? ‘Small potatoes?’ Iran will trade tankers for US casualties every day of the week.

The Hormuz Letter @HormuzLetter

3h

BREAKING: Iran’s IRGC announces it struck the deployment site for F-35, F-16 and F-15 fighter jets, as well as a fighter jet shelter, a maintenance and repair facility, and a preparation area at the US Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan with ballistic missiles, “inflicting significant damage.”

The Hormuz Letter @HormuzLetter

56m

BREAKING: A large number of injured US soldiers are being flown to Ramstein Air Base in Germany, some with life-threatening injuries, following tonight’s Iranian ballistic missile strikes on the Muwaffaq Salti and Prince Hassan air bases in Jordan, per a Jordanian source to Al Arabiya.

A US official tells Reuters minutes ago that all American troops in Jordan are “accounted for,” which is highly unusual wording and does not mean “no casualties,” as it is simply a headcount of every listed soldier. At least 4 of the missiles at Muwaffaq directly impacted, with no interceptors even fired at them.

Apparently the US forces used up all or most of their Patriot interceptors on the first wave. Then came the second wave. In addition, Iran is reported to have used cluster type warheads in their mix, which cause wide area damage on airfields—to landing strips, buildings, planes, personnel, whatever.

Mario Nawfal @MarioNawfal

Twenty-six more Americans wounded in a war the Pentagon says ended in May

The military added them to its casualty database Tuesday under Overseas Operations, the label it has used for Middle East injuries and deaths since July 7, with no dates or locations given.

That column now holds 403 wounded between July 7 and September 8.

The Operation Epic Fury column holds another 417 from February to July, plus five injuries in June and a death in July.

Add the columns and 820 Americans have been wounded in seven months, more than the 756 the Pentagon acknowledged two weeks ago.

Matt Bracken @Matt_Bracken48…

I can only conjecture that the vast majority of the WIA are blast injured from nearby missile impacts. You can get behind cover with a minute or two of warning, but you can’t escape the blast overpressure.

This might be the “Agent Orange” or “Gulf War Syndrome” of Operation Epic Fury. Blast injured troops can suffer lifelong disabilities such as permanent negative mood changes, attention deficit, balance issues, memory issues, vision issues, hearing issues, etc etc.

Iran has made an additional claim for which there is no confirmation:

The Hormuz Letter @HormuzLetter

3h

BREAKING: Iran’s IRGC announces it struck the US destroyers USS Delbert D. Black (DDG-119) and USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) with ballistic missiles in response to tonight’s US strikes on Iranian oil tankers, saying both Aegis warships were carrying cruise missiles and that the attack “caused significant damage to these vessels.”

We’ll see what tomorrow brings.

Top of Front Page of The NYTimes: Israeli Allies Ban Trade With Settlements as U.K. Cites ‘Ethnic Cleansing’

/8 Comments/in /by

More evidence of Israel’s isolation. Not that they really care given the craven behavior of their American puppet. And Netanyahu “was already on the defensive after accusations in the Haaretz newspaper that he had received an explicit warning from Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the ruler of the United Arab Emirates, that Hamas was planning a major attack on Israel in the weeks before the deadly assault of Oct. 7, 2023, and had failed to act on it.”

Israeli Allies Ban Trade With Settlements as U.K. Cites ‘Ethnic Cleansing’

Britain, Canada and France on Tuesday announced sanctions on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, with Britain saying Israel had “turned a blind eye” to violence against Palestinians.

Several people work among green bushes in the foreground. A vast, arid, hilly landscape with scattered buildings and olive groves is in the background.
Palestinian villagers harvesting olives in the village of Turmus Aya, with Israeli settlements in the background, northeast of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank in 2025.Credit…Daniel Berehulak/The New York Times

Stephen Castle reported from London, and Adam Rasgon, Aaron Boxerman and Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem.

Britain, Canada and France on Tuesday announced sanctions on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, a symbolic step by three once-staunch allies illustrating Israel’s deepening isolation after the devastating war in Gaza and settler violence in the West Bank.

Israel has been increasingly ostracized over its conduct of the war in Gaza, in which tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed. International attention is now focused on its tightening grip on the West Bank and its expansion of illegal settlements there. In recent weeks, Israeli extremist settlers have repeatedly attacked Palestinians as the military has stood by.

Israel responded to Britain’s announcement with fury and indignation and announced countermeasures. Israel said it would close the British Consulate General in East Jerusalem. The institution, founded in 1839, represents the British government in Jerusalem, the occupied West Bank and Gaza.

The coordinated move by the three nations risks further souring their relationship with the Trump administration, which has been a staunch supporter of Israel both diplomatically and militarily, although the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has spoken out against settler violence.

Britain’s package of measures was announced on Tuesday in Parliament by Ed Miliband, who became foreign secretary in July. It represents the clearest shift in British foreign policy since Andy Burnham became prime minister that month.

“Today marks the beginning of a new approach,” Mr. Miliband told lawmakers. He said that the British government “agrees that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank — perpetrated by settler terrorists.” All too often, he added, “the Israeli government has turned a blind eye to this and worse.”

In a speech with an often deeply personal tone, Mr. Miliband said that he had made his announcement as a “proud British Jew” who was “unwavering” in his support for the state of Israel. He added, however, that Britain had concluded that the occupation was unlawful in line with a ruling by the International Court of Justice.

“So I can announce today that we will introduce an import ban on goods from illegal settlements in the occupied territories,” he said, adding that the measures would also cover those who provide services to settlements, including “construction, infrastructure, financing or real estate for settlement expansion.”

The U.S. secretary of state, Marco Rubio, cast the move as potentially undermining efforts toward de-escalating tensions in the West Bank.

Before the British statement, Mr. Huckabee warned that the plans would stoke tensions with Washington and that possible countermeasures from the United States could have a “huge economic impact on British businesses.”

Mr. Huckabee told the BBC that Britain’s firms might face restrictions on business in some U.S. states that penalize boycotts on Israel, citing Florida as an example. “It’s like throwing a stone and not having an idea where it’s going to land,” he said.

Mr. Miliband also announced that Britain would refuse applications for the sale of arms that would “materially contribute to the occupation.” The scope of that pledge was initially unclear. Britain provides only a tiny fraction of arms imports to Israel, which are mostly sourced from the United States and Germany.

In 2024, the previous Labour government suspended around 30 licenses to export parts for fighter aircraft and military radar in protest of their potential use in the war in Gaza. The new policy would extend those suspensions for as long as Israel maintains its occupation, Mr. Miliband said.

In all, a dozen countries, including Spain, Denmark and Ireland — some of which had already announced plans for sanctions — said on Tuesday that they now supported restrictions on trade with settlements.

Pat McFadden, a senior British cabinet minister, said that the overriding drive behind the plan was to keep alive the possibility of a two-state solution, a proposed framework to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by establishing an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

“It’s also important to say that Israel is an important trading partner for the U.K.,” Mr. McFadden said. “This isn’t intended to be a boycott of all Israeli goods.”

A longtime ally of Israel, Britain has repeatedly condemned Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are considered illegal under international law. In Israel, a number of former generals, intelligence officials and prime ministers recently accused armed settlers in the West Bank of ethnic cleansing after they raided Palestinian homes, mosques and villages.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has shrugged off international and domestic criticism and promoted building more settlements at a breakneck pace.

Ed Miliband, in a dark suit, white shirt, and dark tie walks, holding a bright red folder. A black metal fence is in the foreground.
Ed Miliband arriving at Downing Street in London on Tuesday. The foreign secretary referenced his Jewish heritage when he was appointed in July, noting that his parents came to Britain as refugees from the Nazis, and pledging to “seek a sustainable peace in Palestine and Israel.”Credit…Isabel Infantes/Reuters

Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Kingdom, welcomed Mr. Miliband’s announcement, describing it as a “turning point in every sense.”

“The U.K. has finally matched its values with its actions,” he said in a phone interview. “What happened today is the beginning, not the end. But it is a very, very powerful beginning.”

Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s far-right finance minister and chief settlement promoter, suggested Israel should expel the British ambassador. Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s national security minister, also said Israel should recognize that the Falkland Islands, a British territory in the south Atlantic, belonged to Argentina.

Other critics warned that Mr. Netanyahu could use the sanctions to galvanize his supporters ahead of elections next month. The centrist leader of Israel’s parliamentary opposition, Yair Lapid, called the British move “a grave mistake” that came “at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.” He added in a statement that it “strengthens the extremist voices in Israel a moment before the elections.”

At the same time, Mr. Netanyahu’s political opponents argued that he had brought the sanctions upon Israel because of the conduct of his government.

He was already on the defensive after accusations in the Haaretz newspaper that he had received an explicit warning from Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the ruler of the United Arab Emirates, that Hamas was planning a major attack on Israel in the weeks before the deadly assault of Oct. 7, 2023, and had failed to act on it. The assault, which the Israeli authorities said had led to the deaths of about 1,200 people in Israel and the abduction of about 250 people, was the catalyst for the war in Gaza.

Around the time he became prime minister in Britain, Mr. Burnham apologized for the government’s initial reaction to Israel’s conduct in Gaza, saying that his Labour Party “didn’t get it right” and adding, “There’s increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed.” He did not say genocide had been committed, saying that only the international courts could determine accountability.

The debate over Gaza has had domestic political consequences in Britain, with an insurgent Green Party capitalizing on misgivings over Labour’s initial caution among more left-leaning voters.

While Britain’s chief rabbi publicly opposed the move on Tuesday, calling it “truly a dark day,” some British Jews welcomed the tougher measures. Yachad, a pro-Israel group that opposes Israel’s occupation, said in a statement that the “announcement is not anti-Israel, and it is certainly not antisemitic.” The organization said that “Israel’s current extremist government has crossed almost every red line” in entrenching its occupation.

Last month, Britain condemned the Israeli government’s decision to move ahead with plans for new homes for settlers in E1, part of the West Bank near Jerusalem, in a joint statement with countries including France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Norway and Australia.

The statement urged Israel “to retract these plans immediately and end its expansion of settlements in the West Bank.” It added, “Not only will they take us further from peace, but they further undermine Israel’s international standing.”

Image

From a car's interior, two silhouetted people face forward. Outside, a road winds through dry hills, displaying multiple blue and white flags with a Star of David.
Israeli flags fluttering next to Palestinian farms in the West Bank in June.Credit…Ivor Prickett for The New York Times

 

Saxony-Anhalt: AfD votes per CDU vote by age

/6 Comments/in /by

Jared Taylor: Our Time Is Coming

/11 Comments/in /by